Allahabad Court February 1999 Judgments

Central Bank of India Vs. Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2000)ILLJ167All

D.K. Seth, J.1. Notices were issued to the opposite parties No. 2 and 3, but neither post card nor registered card had come back.2. By an order dated April 1, 1986 service of notices upon opposite parties No. 2 and 3 was deemed sufficient service under Chapter VIII Rule 12 of the Rules of the Court, but no appearance has been put in on behalf of opposite parties No. 2 and 3. Amar Jeet Kaur appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1.3. Mr. Sandeep Seth, holding brief of Sri. N.K. Seth, submits that initiation of the proceeding by the Labour Court under Industrial Disputes Act against the petitioner in relation to a dispute raised by the respondent No. 2 on account of suspension of respondent No. 3 who is allegedly workman, is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as respondent No. 3, Bank Branch Manager was performing managerial, administrative function as an executive officer of the branch to which he was the Manager. He is excluded from the definition of workman as defined under Section 2(...

Sudhansu Kumar and anr. Vs. Vice Chairman, Varanasi Development Author ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (1999)2UPLBEC866a

Ravi S. Dhavan and V.P. Goel, JJ.1. This matter had been heard on 16.2.1999. A final order had been passed relegating the petitioners to an alternative remedy. But learned Counsel for petitioners Mr. Ashok Bhushan made a request to the Court that perhaps the alternative remedy relegated is not an alternative remedy, and he may be permitted to submit further, notwithstanding the order of 16.2.1999. Suffice it to say that the order of 16.2.1999 was virtually an order by consent to enable the petitioner to an alternative remedy under Section 41, as suggested.2. Permission to submit further was granted and, in the circumstances, the matter has been put up today.3. Now it has been urged, regard being had to the circumstances, that Section 15 has been an amendment by insertion of clause (9), there is no recourse the petitioner can take to, and the order impugned is a final order. Thus, the contention is that even the remedy under sub-section (3) of Section 41 is not available. The Court has ...

Mata Deen Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad

1. The applicant has filed O. A. No. 911/96 and O. A. No. 1335/ 96 for the same relief of compassionate appointment, hence both the Original Applications are decided together.These are the applications under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for issue of a writ/order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding the respondents to consider the candidature of the applicant's son on compassionate ground in class-Ill category and after proper screening and other formalities the case may be referred by respondent No. 2 to Headquarters for further approval of the competent authority in a time bound direction, 2. There is no dispute between the parties in respect of the fact that the applicant was working as Fitter Grade-I under Chief Wagon Supdt.Central Railway, Jhansi and he was medically decategorised on account of poor vision. The applicant submitted the application for compassionate appointment of his son Brij Kumar which was declined by criptic order dat...

Mst. Shimla Devi Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur and ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1166

Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 23.4.1986 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.2. Brief facts as enumerated in the writ petition are that during the course of consolidation proceedings the property in dispute, i.e., Khata No. 9 of village Dunl Chandpur Pargana and Tehsil Deoband, district Saharanpur was recorded in the basic year Khatauni in the name of Kabja Singh, respondent No. 2, objection under Section 9 was filed by the petitioner claiming herself to be the daughter-in-law of Kabja Singh. She claimed her right on the basis of a family settlement. According to the petitioner, the memorandum of family settlement was recorded on 28.12.1980. The petitioner filed document dated 28.12.1980, examined witnesses and did not examine Kabja Singh. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal. The Sett...

Dr. Ravindra Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1171; (1999)2UPLBEC1628

M. Katju and Kamal Kishore, JJ.1. Heard Sri U. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.2. In this case, although the petition was admitted on 9.7.1992, no counter-affidavit has been filed as yet.3. The petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 20.6.1992 Annexure-6 to this petition by which his prayer for regularisation as lecturer in Economics in National Degree College, Barahalganj, Gorakhpur has been rejected.4. The post of lecturer fell vacant and, therefore, a requisition was sent to the District Inspector of Schools. Gorakhpur on 15.2.1989 Annexure-1 to this writ petition. Thereafter the Committee of Management of the Institution obtained a letter of permission for making appointment from the Regional Higher Education Officer, Gorakhpur and the same was given by letter dated 19.4.1989 Annexure-2 to this writ petition. Since the Commission failed to appoint, an advertisement was made in the daily newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' on 31...

Modi Industries Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1226

M.C. Agarwal and R.K. Agarwal, JJ.1. In these five writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, thereis a single petitioner and similar reliefs are claimed in all the writ petitions. They are, therefore, being heard together and are being disposed of at the admission stage.2. We have heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Mittal, learned counsel for the Nagar Palika Parishad.3. The petitioner is M/s. Modi Industries Limited which owns and operates five industrial units in the names of (1) Modi Gas and Chemicals, (2) Modi Steels, (3) Modi Sugar Mills. (4) Modi Paints and Varnish Works and (5) Modi Vanaspati Co. The assessments for the purposes of levy of municipal taxes under the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1960 in respect of the aforesaid five industrial undertakings have been made by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Modi Nagar in the aforesaid names. The petitioner challenges the recovery of the taxes for which the recovery certificates have been issue...

Krishna Pal Singh (Decd.) Through L.Rs. and Others Vs. Deputy Director ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1375

Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 29.5.1982 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and to modify the judgments and orders dated 24.11.1979 and 2.2.1979 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer respectively.2. The brief facts for the purposes of the present writ petition are that the dispute relates to Chak Nos. 87 and 20 of village Hathika Pargana Akbarpur and Khata No. 57 of village Asvi Pargana Derapur. The Chak No. 87 was recorded in the name of Smt. Thakura Devi widow of Bharat Singh, whereas Chak No. 20 and Khata No. 57 were recorded in the names of the petitioners and contesting respondents. Smt. Thakura Devi died. The petitioners filed an application under Section 12, of the Consolidation of Holdings Act in respect of the land situate in village Hathlka and Asvt to mutate their names in the revenue papers by expungin...

Committee of Management, Lal Bahadur Shastri Smarak Degree College, Ma ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1470; (1999)2UPLBEC957

O.P. Garg, J. 1. There is a Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Society, Maharajganj, which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act under the aegis of which two Post Graduate Colleges, viz., Jawahar Lal Nehru Smarak Post Graduate College, Maharajganj (for short 'J.L.N. College'), and Lal Bahadur Shastri Smarak Degree College. Anand Nagar, Maharajganj (for short 'L.B.S. College') are being run. Both these institutions have separate bye-laws for constitution of Committee of management their governance and management. These institutions are affiliated to Gorakhpur University and are governed by the provisions of U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1973') and the first Statute of the University.2. The short and die-hard question raised in this writ petition is whether the term of the Committee of Management of L.B.S. College is for a period of three years or only one year. This controversy has been raised in the wake of following facts :Th...

Kamal Krishna Chopra and Etc. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999CriLJ2345

ORDERO.P. Jain, J.1. The above two writ petitions are inter-connected and, therefore, they are being disposed of together.2. The petitioners have been summoned under Sections 420 and 120B, I. P. C. vide order dated 25th September, 1996 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad. The petitioners filed an application for recall of the order on the ground that the court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case and on the ground that the case is of a civil nature and no criminal offence is made out. The application for recall of order has been rejected by ixth A. C. J. M., Ghaziabad, vide order dated 17th May, 1997, a copy of which is Annex-ure-7 to the petition. Being aggrieved against the rejection of recall application, the petitioners filed a revision before the Court of Session which has been dismissed by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad on 10th July, 1998, vide Annexure-8 to the petition. Under these circumstances the present writ petitions have been filed.3. I have hea...

Committee of Management, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Kanya Higher Secondary Scho ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1153; (1999)3UPLBEC2280

D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioners had challenged an order, by which fresh election was directed to be held. The petitioners allege that on earlier occasion a writ petition was filed wherein an interim order was issued on 16th May, 1994 directing Prabandh Sanchalak to function and prepare a list of members after inviting objections. The said interim order was extended by an order dated 25.8.1994. It is alleged that, no election has been held since then. In the meantime, almost four years have elapsed. Life of the Committee of Management is about three years. If no election has been held in the meantime, it shows a very unfortunate state of affairs. The petitioners contend that since there was an interim order to the extent that no election shall be held till 18.7.1994, which was subsequently extended by order dated 25.8.1994, no election could be held now. In order to appreciate the situation, it is necessary to quote the respective orders alleged to have been passed in Writ Petition No. ...